But if I can prove your product caused damage to me, even if you never aggressed against me, I should be able to win a civil suit and collect damages.

If the game puts the idea in childrens' heads, and they provably act on it (for example, if those who have played the game commit school shootings at a massively increased rate over those who don't, and they are observably imitating the game) then people have suffered damage they otherwise would not have suffered if the game hadn't been made.

The perpetrators of the shootings are fully, criminally responsible.

The game company is civilly responsible because it caused that damage, even if it is not criminally responsible for that damage.

Children get ideas from all over the place. One idea that is "put in their heads" is the idea that it's wrong to act aggressively or violently against others.

They can get ideas of violence from the daily news or movies or books or TV.

What ideas they choose to act on are their choices. They've probably already seen news reports/videos of various school shootings/mass shootings/gang beat downs/the "knockout game" etc. and if that's what they want to choose, a new video game isn't going to change their choice.

There seems to be a strong connection between psychoactive drugs given to children and an increased propensity to behave in psychotic ways... Why not talk about suing the people who prescribed the drugs for them?

"Free hate speech"

IP Logged

Jeff

Libertarian Freedom Member
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 46200
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #11 - Jun 1st, 2018 at 5:48am

I never disputed this. I simply said that if the video game is provably causing violence that would not exist without it, the victims are entitled to sue and win damages.

A good way to explain this to you might be to point out that if you get lung cancer from second-hand smoke, you should be able to sue the cigarette maker even though it was the smoker's choice to smoke around you. The product caused you harm. If you can prove it, you get to sue and win.

There seems to be a strong connection between psychoactive drugs given to children and an increased propensity to behave in psychotic ways... Why not talk about suing the people who prescribed the drugs for them?

Why not indeed!

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.-SnarkySack

IP Logged

Jeff

Libertarian Freedom Member
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 46200
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #13 - Jun 2nd, 2018 at 7:46am

I never disputed this. I simply said that if the video game is provably causing violence that would not exist without it, the victims are entitled to sue and win damages.

That's pretty irrational lizard.People were killing each other for no apparent reason even before there were guns, much less video games or children being fed psychoactive drugs.

When you say "provably" you are talking about a civil trial where the standard of proof is much lower than for a criminal trial, where a jury can be persuaded to feel sorry for a victim and and to feel good about awarding huge damages to the victim's family from a faceless "deep pocketed evil corporation". It's a sort of class warfare. No, more like just another way to destroy "evil capitalism".

Why not take the easiest and most likely productive path first, and stop drugging children with psychoactive drugs while at the same teaching them that they are not responsible for what they do.

"Free hate speech"

IP Logged

Don_G

Ex Member

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #14 - Jun 2nd, 2018 at 12:44pm

Video games of this sort are doing their part in increasing gun violence in the land of the gun. It's one factor that goes hand in hand with continuous US led wars that are being glamourized by their government. Killing people in foreign lands eventually translates into killing Americans in their own country.

It becomes conditioning of already angry people that makes human life cheap.

IP Logged

Jeff

Libertarian Freedom Member
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 46200
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #15 - Jun 2nd, 2018 at 2:32pm

Video games of this sort are doing their part in increasing gun violence in the land of the gun.

Nonsense. It is much more reasonable to lay the violence (which is not increasing BTW) at the feet of failure to teach personal responsibility, respect for others and the inherent worth of the individual to children.

"Free hate speech"

IP Logged

The Opposition

Libertarian Freedom Member
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10811
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #16 - Jun 3rd, 2018 at 3:23am

That's pretty irrational lizard.People were killing each other for no apparent reason even before there were guns, much less video games or children being fed psychoactive drugs.

Fundamentally, what I'm talking about is a controlled sample of sufficient size of children who play the game versus children who don't. Hopefully, the ones who don't would play an equal amount of some sort of other video games.

Answer my second-hand smoking analogy, if you dare. You get cancer because someone else smokes. Without that product, you would not have cancer. Shouldn't you be able to sue the cigarette company? Aren't you entitled to damages if you can prove it?

When you say "provably" you are talking about a civil trial where the standard of proof is much lower than for a criminal trial, where a jury can be persuaded to feel sorry for a victim and and to feel good about awarding huge damages to the victim's family from a faceless "deep pocketed evil corporation". It's a sort of class warfare. No, more like just another way to destroy "evil capitalism".

This is a flaw with civil court that I've brought up before, and you pretty much laughed in my face for it, so you made your own bed here.

Fundamentally, what I'm talking about is a controlled sample of sufficient size of children who play the game versus children who don't. Hopefully, the ones who don't would play an equal amount of some sort of other video games.

Answer my second-hand smoking analogy, if you dare.

The argument that violent comics, violent TV shows, violent movies and violent games "cause" children to become violent has been around since I was a child watching war movies and Roadrunner cartoons and reading superhero comics and playing cowboys and Indians with the neighborhood kids. There has never been any evidence that it is true.

Second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. It might slightly increase your chance of getting cancer if you work full time in a small poorly ventilated bar that allows smoking.

Even if you get lung cancer under those circumstances, you can't "prove" that the second hand smoke caused it, you might have gotten it anyway, or not.

"Free hate speech"

IP Logged

Jeff

Libertarian Freedom Member
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 46200
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014

Re: Active Shooter - The Video Game - Should It Be Banned?Reply #18 - Jun 3rd, 2018 at 7:30am

The argument that violent comics, violent TV shows, violent movies and violent games "cause" children to become violent has been around since I was a child watching war movies and Roadrunner cartoons and reading superhero comics and playing cowboys and Indians with the neighborhood kids. There has never been any evidence that it is true.

The evidence is in the fact that the US is the most violent country in the world. All of that was encouraged by your government because it conditioned kid for war. It made the military attractive to children when children should have been schooled toward nonviolence.

Quote:

Second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. It might slightly increase your chance of getting cancer if you work full time in a small poorly ventilated bar that allows smoking.

That's right, it might cause Cancer.

Quote:

Even if you get lung cancer under those circumstances, you can't "prove" that the second hand smoke caused it, you might have gotten it anyway, or not.

No, you can't prove it and that's one of the good reasons to keep smokers away from people who have a right to breathe clean air.

Remember people's rights? Libertarianism?

Sorry about government having to smack you down Craig but it's over. Now you have to try to get over it too!